Welsh police forces have today (6 Oct) launched an enforcement campaign targeting motorists who use a mobile phone while driving.
The two-week (6-19 Oct) all-Wales enforcement campaign is being used to urge all road users to ‘keep their eyes on the road’ and not be distracted by their mobile phone.
Police patrols will increase across Wales during the campaign to “promote the safety message” and safety camera vans will be used to enforce mobile phone offences.
Chief inspector Darren Wareing, North Wales Police, said: “This campaign is part of our ongoing effort to reduce the number of drivers who risk becoming involved in a serious or fatal collision due to using a mobile phone while driving.
“Along with drink driving, speeding, not wearing a seatbelt and driving carelessly, using a mobile phone behind the wheel is classed as one of the ‘Fatal 5’ – the 5 most common causes of fatal road traffic collisions.
“With the increased use of smart phones we are also seeing drivers being distracted while accessing their apps, reading their emails or accessing the internet. Drivers need to be aware that these actions carry the same danger and the same penalty.”
The campaign is supported by Road Safety Wales, whose chair, Susan Storch, said: “Driving a vehicle requires us to multi-task so anything above and beyond that needs to wait until we are safely parked up.
"Campaigns such as this demonstrate the resolve of all Road Safety Wales’ partners in tackling this issue and we will continue to work together to drive home the message that you need to switch off before you drive off."
Idris:
Those who’ve disagreed possibly have long been aware that the global effectiveness of speed cameras can’t be accurately measured and you’ve only been looking at individual sites in isolation which can’t give you the full picture. Mobile cameras even more so, as other offences can be detected as alluded to in the news item.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
Yet again a substantial majority of those who comment here choose to disagree with the plain statistical facts I quoted. There is no doubt whatever about those facts, obtained by applying simple arithmetic to Stats19 data. Would anyone care to explain how they feel able to disagree with them?
Idris Francis Fight Back With Facts Petersfield
0
Ashley
A few minutes ago ago I finished my analysis of KSI in 32 police force areas, that occurred within 1km of a camera, from 1987 to 2011. I then totalled the KSI not by calendar year but by month relative to the month of installation of each camera, from 20 months before to 20 months after. If cameras reduced accidents those numbers would fall, relative to trend shortly after installation, and reach maximum effect within a few months. Take it from me – they do not. Camera benefit is and always was a statistical mirage.
Idris Francis Fight Back With Facts Petersfield
0
Isn’t using a mobile phone whilst driving a good example of multi-tasking?
Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
0
Bravo Ashley, although don’t entirely agree with your second para, although anyone who uses the ‘phone whilst driving displays a comntempt for the law and resonsibility on the road generally so we should expect other errors which would lead to accidents, if not the ‘phone use at the time. Same goes for those who regularly excede the speed limit and don’t wear seatbelts. For drink/drivers I would hope it’s taken as read.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
Agreed, it should be ‘fatal 4’, driving carelessly is a catch-all and covers all of the above. Also agree that dates should not be made public.
I suspect the use of mobile phones (and other devices) is probably now the cause of more collisions than drink-driving or excess speed.
Nor should the location of speed cameras be indicated by bright yellow signs or published and there should be more mobile speed cameras.
Ashley Leaney
0
I thought it was the Fatal ‘4’. Any advance on ‘5’? I know it’s a bit of PR, but why advertise specific enforcement anyway and why give specific dates? I’m sure the public would like to think offences are detected and enforced 24/7, covertly if necessary.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0